Perspectives of Post-Secondary Students on Community Mental Health Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The primary objective of our study was to identify trends and determine patterns in the opinions of post-secondary students regarding the community mental health services. The study was carried out by a team of 3 students from the Research Analyst Postgraduate Program at the Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning, Toronto. The study commenced in October 2017 and was concluded by April 2018. It was approved by the Program Coordinator who is a designated member of the Humber College’s Research Ethics Board. Methods: A mixed-method approach was adopted with an online survey (n = 185), two focus group discussions and four semi-structured interviews serving as primary tools for data collection. Postsecondary students in the Greater Toronto Area, between the ages of 18-29, were eligible for the study. Results: The descriptive findings revealed students’ preference for the peer support services over all other service types. The focus-groups and interview participants had expressed diverse opinions and had highlighted pros and cons of the online and the in-person counselling services. Although majority (79%) of the students surveyed were aware of the mental health services on their campus, the qualitative analysis revealed their disillusionment with the promotion & the accessibility of the services. Moreover, our quantitative analysis indicated statistically significant variation in the students’ perspectives on the mental health services based on academic background and sex. Conclusion: Post-secondary students in the Greater Toronto Area expressed varying opinions, level of awareness on, and approach towards the mental health services. Our study can serve to inform college/university administrations, and policymakers about the necessity to conduct a broader need-based assessment and evaluation of student perceptions and concerns with regards to the mental health care system. Further evaluation of the observed trends and patterns may help in the development of more effective mental health programs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".